ILNews

Opinions June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Joseph E. Corcoran v. Bill Wilson, superintendent
07-2093, 07-2182
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Allen Sharp.
Civil. Reinstates and incorporates by reference the earlier opinion in Corcoran v. Buss to the extent that it reversed the District Court’s judgment granting habeas relief on the basis of the claimed Sixth Amendment violation; and affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that the Indiana courts did not mishandle the issue of his competence to waive post-conviction remedies. Remands to District Court to permit it to address Corcoran’s remaining grounds for habeas relief.

Spurlino Materials LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, et al.
Nos. 10-2875, 10-3049
Petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Civil. Grants the National Labor Relations Board’s application for enforcement of its order against cross-petitioner Spurlino Materials. The NLRB adopted the reasoning of the administrative law judge to find Spurlino engaged in a variety of unfair labor practices and imposed remedial measures. Substantial evidence supports the board’s holding. Denies Spurlino’s cross-petition for review.

Indiana Supreme Court
J.M. v. M.A., et al.
20S04-1012-CV-676
Civil. Reverses trial court decision to set aside the paternity affidavit and remands to give J.M. the opportunity, as agreed to at oral argument, to challenge the paternity affidavit in the manner outlined in Indiana Code.

Elmer D. Baker v. State of Indiana
17S04-1009-CR-500
Criminal. Adopts the reasoning of the California Supreme Court and holds that the state may in its discretion designate a specific act or acts on which it relies to prove a particular charge. If the state decides not to so designate, then the jurors should be instructed that in order to convict the defendant, they must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or acts or that the defendant committed all of the acts described by the victim and included within the time period charged. Finds Baker did not demonstrate that the instruction error in his case so prejudiced him that he was denied a fair trial.

Lamar M. Crawford v. State of Indiana
49S05-1106-CR-370
Criminal. Affirms denial of two of Crawford’s requests for certain footage relating to his murder investigation for an in camera review. Crawford’s requests did not pass the first step of the three-step test used to determine the discoverability of information in criminal cases.

Crisis Connection, Inc. v. Ronald K. Fromme
19S05-1012-CR-678
Criminal. Reverses trial court order that Crisis Connection turn over counseling records for in camera review before turning them over to Fromme. The records are protected by the victim advocate privilege and Fromme does not have a constitutional right to an in camera review of Crisis Connection’s records. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mickey Cundiff v. State of Indiana
31A05-1008-CR-607
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Cundiff was not entitled to a speedy trial pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B) despite his incarceration on an unrelated cause. A defendant must be incarcerated on the pending charges to be entitled to the benefits of the 70-day speedy trial rule.

Save Our School: Elmhurst High School v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, et al.
02A04-1012-PL-746
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of motion to dismiss Save Our School’s complaint for declaratory judgment against Fort Wayne Community Schools seeking to force Elmhurst High School to remain open. FWCS's decision to close Elmhurst is not an action subject to judicial review as potentially violating the Indiana Constitution.

Elliott McKinley Montgomery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1012-CR-616
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder in the perpetration of robbery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.H. and J.H.; Jo.H. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
89A04-1011-JT-706
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

James Hatala v. Sally Hatala (NFP)
64A03-1011-DR-555
Domestic relation. Affirms in part the dissolution decree and reverses in part. Remands to revalue the proceeds from the condemnation settlements at zero, to recalculate its division of the parties’ marital assets, to determine what effect, if any, this recalculation has on the alleged intended 50-50 division of the marital estate, to recalculate what amount of Sally Hatala’s attorney fees, if any, James Hatala should pay, and to amend the divorce decree accordingly.

Ryan T. McMullen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1009-CR-1165
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony possession of cocaine and Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Jack Edwards, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A05-1006-CR-395
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

Robert M. Richardson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1010-CR-654
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

SB Hospitality, LLC, et al. v. R.S. Elliott Specialty Supply, Inc. (NFP)
71A05-1008-PL-702
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of SB Hospitality and Gita Patel’s motion to withdraw admissions and the grant of summary judgment for R.S. Elliott Specialty Supply.

KJE, LLC v. RAC Holdings, Inc., and Rex Carroll (NFP)
02A03-1102-PL-52
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Rex Carroll and RAC Holdings on the issue of whether RAC breached a franchise agreement.

Robert L. Frank, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A04-1012-CR-801
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Class D felony sexual battery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of Z.E., et al.; S.E. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
79A04-1101-JT-27
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Paternity of T.F.-W.; D.F. v. J.W. (NFP)
49A02-1009-JP-976
Juvenile. Affirms grant of legal custody of T.F.-W. to child’s biological father.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT